dual wield and chance

wyldhunt wrote:

I would consider it a great win if we can get away with just the expanded helmet list, the newer WH weap+shield bonus, and AS roll of 1 always fails!

A wholehearted Amen to that!

The idea of helmet styles is awesome! I totally love it! Adding unofficial stuff is always better than changing official stuff. This also allows to start the pricing for these helmets from scratch. The 10 gc is probably too expensive, plus 5 for shield, that makes a 15 gc alternative to a second weapon, i.e. not an alternative. Helmet for 5gc or, heck, 3gc, may be way better.

I agree on the supbar phrasing of the 'protection' rule. But "first" doesn't matter, the effect is the same. How about this instead:

Protection: A warrior wearing a helmet ignores one of the armour save modifiers of enemy blows in hand-to-hand combat.


There is one thing I am worried about: Naming the helmet "styles" after designs which obviously break with WYSIWYG. Personally I play with a very soft version of WYSIWYG but I can see many people being frustrated about not being able to add properly looking helmet. The exisiting term "helmet" is general enough for about anything (but seriously, who changes a model once it buys a helmet???). Anyways, how about using material to identify the various versions of helmets? Like ... Steel Helmet and... okay, running out of options way too quick...


I guess the new helmets section would start something like this:

The following sub-categories of helmets are added to the equipment list of all models who have access to helmets. In addition to the normal helmet they have access to these items. Naturally a warrior can wear only one helmet at any time. Unless stated otherwise, all helmets are pieces of armour and so prevent spell-casters from using magic.


Combat Helmet - 10gc - Common
Save: A model with a Combat Helmet has a basic save of 6 on a D6 in hand-to-hand combat.

Leather Coif - 3gc - Common
No Metal: A Leather Cuif does not prevent spell-casters from using magic.
Stinky: Leather Cuifs cannot be sold back at the Trading Posts; the stench alone is enough to drive away even the most desperate of buyers!

Mail Coif - 5gc - Common
Protection: A warrior wearing a helmet ignores one of the armour save modifiers of enemy blows in hand-to-hand combat.

Trencher Helmet - 10gc - Common
Save: A model with a Trencher Helmet has a basic save of 6 on a D6 against missile fire.

______________________________

Not sure if the Combat helmet isn't too strong. It is very strong after all. Wouldn't the prevention of AS modifier effect suffice?

cianty, you could add a sight limitation when using helmets?

if you wear a certain helmet you can't look 360 degrees but only 180 degrees. thus compensating?

I really like the helmet idea, perhaps i have some time this weekend to think about this

Paluke wrote:

cianty, you could add a sight limitation when using helmets?

if you wear a certain helmet you can't look 360 degrees but only 180 degrees. thus compensating?

I really like the helmet idea, perhaps i have some time this weekend to think about this

That sounds a bit complicated. A limit concerning how far a model can look could work though. I don't think this is necessary though...

Maybe applying -1 BS (since the small slits make it harder aim) to combat helmet or allowing the save only in close combat would make it fairer – it would prevent any strong shooters bunkering up under thick armor.

Ok, this might just be me talking.

But I see altering existing rules that are horribly unbalanced as a simpler and more logical option than adopting small changes to specific rules. (In this case, Helmets)

The part of Helmets that would balance against DWing would be their increased AS, not little differing specific rules that would only complicate game play.

However, as I think I am alone on this... How about;

Helmet - 3gc - +1 in HtH to AS if carrying a shield

that coupled with;

Shields +1 AS in HtH

that's 8gp for a 5+ Armour save which would still not balance original Dual Wielding but if you included the -1 to hit on the off hand without the chance of criticals. It would be close enough.

TheFool wrote:

But I see altering existing rules that are horribly unbalanced as a simpler and more logical option than adopting small changes to specific rules. (In this case, Helmets)

The part of Helmets that would balance against DWing would be their increased AS, not little differing specific rules that would only complicate game play.

Actually you're not that alone... Unless having various helmets provides very good tactical options and not just some neat blah blah, then I too prefer altering the original helmet alone.

I'm still favouring the effect of ignoring an AS modifier instead of granting +1 AS, because that is pretty damn strong. After all we are then introducing an additonal +2 AS for shields in close combat compared to the original rules.

That is true...

When you say ignoring an armour save modifier, what extent are you able to ignore it.

Would a helmet reduce axes to 0AP value, yet if the attacker had S4, it would then instead of a -2AP value, it would become -1AP?

such as...

Protection: A warrior wearing a helmet reduces the total armour save modifier of an attacker by -1 when engaged in Hand to Hand combat. eg, A warrior attacking with an axe against a model wearing a helmet would have his overall Armour Piercing value reduced to 0 as the helmet would negate the -1 Armour Piercing value of the axe.

Exactly.

This, coupled with Shields having a +1 AS in HtH
would have DWers at 59% to hit compared to a shield and single weapon
user who is left with 50%.

Still not balanced.

A balance would be....

• The Shield alteration (Protection; stated above)
  
• Secondary hand weapon have a -1 to hit.
  
• Shields having a +1 AS value.
  

This
would JUST... just keep the game balanced, at least in such a way that
green henchmen would have an equal choice between DWing and Shielding,
it would also introduce a slightly more common use for 2 handed weapons.

You can hardly have totally equal chances anyways.. 50 vs 58 looks kinda good to me, especially since you can develop armour much more by purchasing light/heavy/gromril.

Well, with the off hand in DWing being modified by -1 (and possibly even having no chance to critical)

It would make it a perfect medium.

This way, players would take shields to be defensive and DWing to be on the offense.

I would propose;

---Alternate Combat System Version 1:---
1. Any model using a shield in Hand to Hand combat receives +1 to their Armor Save.

2. An Armor Save roll of 1 always fails.

3. Helmets grant protection against the the overall Armour Save modifier of an opponent in HtH combat.

Add this to the special rules relating to helmets:

“Protection: A warrior wearing
a helmet reduces the total armour save modifier of an attacker by -1
when engaged in Hand to Hand combat. eg, A warrior attacking with an
axe against a model wearing a helmet would have his overall Armour
Piercing value reduced to 0 as the helmet would negate the -1 Armour
Piercing value of the axe.”

4. When Dual-Wielding, the additional attack added
by holding a weapon in the off-hand has a -1 to hit modifier and cannot
deliver a critical hit.

5. Add ‘Dual-wield’ as a skill to the Combat skills
list. With this skill, a model with a weapon in the off-hand does not
suffer a -1 to hit modifier to their additional attack and is able to
roll critical hits with both weapons.

6. Dramatis Personae and Hired
Swords who are purchased/hired with a dual-wield setup (such as Dwarf
Slayers) automatically have the Dual-wield skill.


-------

Developers (in order of appearance): Paluke,
Asp, Popmouth, Svenn, bc99, canonpenitentiary, ts061282, hero,
Nastyogre, wyldhunt, TheFool, cianty, Pathfinder Dubstyles, Ferrous82,
Matumaros, dragonmw7, Duce.

http://www.strike-to-stun.com/WFB/Interviews/Tuomas.htm :

(Strike-to-Stun, Tuomas Pirinen)

StS: Mordheim is one of the best (if not the best) Games GW ever released. It has this Dark Fantasy
Flavour which WFB lacks. Many of the Skills were taken from Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay.

How strong was the WFRP-influence when creating the game?

TP: Very strong. Back in Finland I ran a WHFRP campaign for five years, which influenced
me hugely. Also remember that I worked very closely with Rick Priestley (director of product development at GW), creator of WHFRP, and he has been a major influence in my professional career.



========================


In WFRP an extra weapon grants no extra attacks, but does suffer -1 to hit (or the equivalent in that system). Also, helmets grant +1 armor, the same as shields, and a metal coif can be worn under a helmet or a total +2 armor on the head.


I would cost the helmets I have suggested: Combat Helmet (10gc), Trencher Helmet (8gc), Padded Helmet (5gc). Does a combat helmet cancel out the total armor negation from a DHW's strength? Seems like it will be an issue late game that way.


I think we can largely get to where we want to be with the shield/hw and helmet styles, but DW needs to be taken down a peg. Minimum change should be -1 to hit; I think this is already accepted by the community. What about the "reroll" nerf?


I agree that if we can just get DW and hw/shield closer, even if still not statistically equal, that will be enough.


"Free dagger": This thing makes dual wielding too cheap from the start. If you have to choose to spend money on a dagger, it would make warband creation choices more interesting (right now, DW with free dagger is an obvious and boring choice). Isn't this a weapon of last resort (not first resort?) What about a simple rule that daggers are too short to DW with anything other than daggers? In WFRP (1995) there is a "Left-handed Dagger" designed for the off-hand that is longer than other daggers.

A simple "a warrior's free dagger cannot be used in addition to another single-handed weapon" indeed has a stronger effect than you might think at first.

It doesn't leave players at "buy additional mace for +3 gc and done", but instead makes the mace the first standard weapon and only THEN the players has to start thinking whether he wants to buy an additional second weapon or a shield instead. This is very interesting..

Dam but you guys are hard core, i've just spent nearly a week reading this thread and it was all about two of my biggest hang ups in Mordheim, i see you've started tackling the issue of helmets but what about the armour itself, having just light and heavy armour seems a bit poor, plus you can purchase toughened leather which is just as good as light armour, if you're considering using 4 types of helmet why not 4 types of armour too from leather haulberch up to full plate armour, this might also help push the balance a bit more towards a sword and shield away from DW

Toughened leathers are actually a lot worse than Light Armour because you can't combine them with Shields.

Secondary hand weapon is way to nitty – you should go for both attacks at -1, easier for game play, and evens up the rules. Though this subject we have dwelled quite a lot...

O and there are some other armors, Gromril and Ithilmar right?

I think we're too the point were we need to gather a lot of real play data. Here are the proposed changes with arguments for each.

1. Problem: Dual Wield >>> Shield. Due to the fact that the game system was directly imported from Warhammer Fantasy without a deep consideration for the similarities and differences in the game systems (most relevant is the "meaning" of a wound), there exists an imbalance between the benefit from wielding two weapons, gaining an additional attack, and wielding a shield for +1 AS.

Proposed Solution: Adopt off-hand penalty of -1 to hit from WFRP and +2 AS for shield and single handed weapon from later editions of Warhammer Fantasy. These solutions are already broadly accepted as _the_ house rule solution to this imbalance issue and so this seems like a reasonable place to start.

2. Problem: Armor vs Armor Negation. Even with the above solutions in place, the ability to gain armor is still outpaced by the ability to negate it. Strength 4+, Axes, Crits and combinations thereof are rather common. Part of the "cost" of wielding a shield is giving up a second hand weapon attack, but if my benefit of wielding a shield is negated half the time for one reason or another, why not always take a second hand weapon, the benefit of which I always receive? Furthermore, assuming my armor will be negated, if I take no armor, it wastes my enemies armor negation, which he has paid for. What is needed is another cheap source of armor so that you can depend on having some armor left after negation.

Proposed Solution: Add the following helmet types to all equipment lists with helmets; Steel Helmet - +1 AS against armor negation in HtH (10gc), Trench Helmet - +1 AS against armor negation from Shooting (15gc), Padded Helmet - 4+ save when stunned to be knocked down instead (5gc). The costs here probably need tuning, but by making armor more reliable, it becomes a valid strategic choice. This would have the beneficial side effect of making DHW, morningstars, flails and halberds more useful, because there is now more armor for them to target. NOTE: The shooting helmet is only mentioned to round out the helmet types, it isn't really relevant to the problem at hand and may introduce other problems of it's own, thus I have priced it higher than I had previously.

3. Problem: Late Game Armor Monsters. With the empowering of armor we are entering territory where a hero can get an auto save eventually.

Proposed Solution: When rolling for armor save, a result of one is always a failure. This is a rule followed by many already and is synonymous with the six always fails rule for characteristic tests that has always been in the game.

Popmouth wrote:

Secondary hand weapon is way to nitty – you should go for both attacks at -1, easier for game play, and evens up the rules. Though this subject we have dwelled quite a lot...

O and there are some other armors, Gromril and Ithilmar right?

By nitty I assume you mean good and the goal isn't to make DWing bad, just make shields at least show up on a regular basis. -1 on "both" attacks punishes multiple profile attacks disproportionately and adds a "wrinkle" to the game system whereby dual wielding makes sense for dregs but not for vampires.

What now about Gromril and Ithilmar?

Man, some tough responses from the big guns at the Yahoo group regarding even thinking about removing free daggers (except as a house rule)! It seems that, even though free daggers aren't WH, removing them won't fly with the guys that are closest to the design principles of Mordheim. They're really in love with cheap DW, it seems. Now we may really know why this hasn't been changed before!

However, I do contend now that expanding the Helmet selection (along with "+1 AS for weap+shield", balance with "AS roll of 1 always fails") can possibly by itself balance DW, and help fulfill Mark's vision of "...warbands upgrading their equipment when they could afford to." Please take a look at the last analysis I did, which shows that the value of DW drastically reduces, and the value of armor stays static, as the number of attacks increase. This bears out Cianty's supposition along those lines. (The analysis still needs to be carried further, against foes with multiple wounds, where DW may continue to carry better effectivness.)

I agree on offering visible modelling differences between helmets - not that our group will use them (we're not strict WYSIWYG), but I'm sure some will. I'm not really in favor of varying costs, due to the likelihood of the "change in base helmet cost" being shot down (by the same people who don't like removing free daggers).

So here are the options I would hone in on:

"Regular" Helmet (10gc): modelled as a coif, or skull cap helmet. Gets standard Avoid Stun ability.

Combat Helmet (10gc): modelled as on open-faced (no flanges) or full helmet. Grants the ability Protection (best wording I can come up with so far): this type of helmet can reduce the Strength of HtH attacks against the wearer. So long as this warrior also has another item of armor, the Strength of incoming HtH attacks is reduced by 1 when considering the Strength's Armor Save adjustment.

Trencher Helmet (10gc): modelled as an open-faced helmet with a brim (example - the middle bowman here: http://www.hourofwolves.org/?view=armies&which=bretonnia&pic=3) or wide flanges around the rim. Grants the ability Deflection: this type of helmet can reduce the Strength of missile attacks against the wearer. So long as this warrior has another item of armor, the Strength of all incoming missile attacks is reduced by 1 when considering the Strength's Armor Save adjustment.

Other comments:

While modifying an Armor Save is thematically different, and gives a special feeling to these helmets, it is harder to figure in the heat of battle, as it modifies a modifier. For this reason, and this reason only, I'm slightly more disposed to a +1 AS rather than reducing Strength's AS reduction.

The Trencher is my least favorite of the helmets, as it is the least "needed" to help out armor. If we got rid of the Trencher, we could just make Skull Cap and Full Helm categories, or Mail Coif and Helmet.

I'm not in favor of the leather hood, unless it's just a 3gc no-ability money sink for spellcasters... Wizards should still be barred from armor unless they get the Warrior Wizard ability.

It's easier for me to fluff-justify a helmet granting a bonus to AS (or reducing armor-piercing of incoming Strength) when considering it combined with other armor. I can definitely get the Avoid Stun from just the helmet itself, but not really the other abilities. This is why I'd still include the "bonus when combined with other armor" clause. It's still flexible - the warrior can get a shield, or body armor. The shield would still be the best value-for-money with the helmet, but the other options are available.

Holy Cow! I can't believe all the info.

There is a point that someone made (I can't remember) but no allowing henchmen to dual wield is a good idea. I instituted with but with a twist, henchmen may dual wield only when they gain an extra attack characteristic but may never have two attacks total. Meaning, once they go to Attacks of 2 they can have two weapons for a total of two attacks or carry one weapon and a shield and get two attacks with the one weapon.

On the idea that a 1 always fails, I actually was able to talk to Tuomas about this and he said if 1s always failed then it would take away from purchasing all the armor. I don't believe ones should always fail on armor.

My last conversation with Andy Hall with SG games is no gaming mechanic changes so don't plan on anything soon coming that way. Experimental rules could be brought up but don't know if they will ever be used.

Ian Davies did this back in 2005 and unfortunately SG didnt' use them as they really didn't want to change the mechanics.

Cianty...you can find them (Ian's experimental rules) on the Yahoo forum back in May 2005.

Ian's Options referenced by Da Bank:

OPTION A. http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/mordheim/message/56537

i. Page 35, "Fighting with two weapons". Add the line "Due to the difficulty
in fighting with more than one weapon, any warrior attempting to do so suffers a
-1 penalty to hit with both weapons. A warrior using a pistol in hand-to-hand
combat is exempt from this penalty."

ii. Page 122, New Combat Skill "Maniac Warrior: The Warrior is adept at
fighting with a weapon in each hand. He may ignore the -1 to hit penalty that
such practice normally incurs."

Johann The Knife, Bertha Bestraufung and Veskit should all be granted the
"Maniac Warrior" skill.

iii. Page 51, under Shield. Add the line. "In addition to this save, a warrior
armed with a shield and a hand-weapon has a basic save of 5+ (or may add +2 to
his armour save if other armour is worn). Mounted models may not gain this
benefit. Hand weapons are defined as hammers, staffs, maces, clubs, axes,
swords, morning stars and spears. Variants such as rapiers or Dwarf axes are
also included.

Page 51, under Buckler. Add the line "In addition to this, a warrior armed
with a buckler and a hand-weapon has a basic save of 6+ (or may add +1 to his
armour save if other armour is worn).

iv. Page 50, under "Light Armour" add "In addition the warrior gains a 6+ save
against Serious Injury during the post-battle phase. Treat a successful save
exactly as if the warrior had received the "Full Recovery" result. He may not
explore, trade nor take part in any other post-battle activities".

v. Page 50, under "Heavy Armour" add "In addition the warrior gains a 5+ save
against Serious Injury during the post-battle phase. Treat a successful save
exactly as if the warrior had received the "Full Recovery" result. He may not
explore, trade nor take part in any other post-battle activities".

vi. Page 51, under "Ithilmar Armour" add "In addition the warrior gains a 5+
save against Serious Injury during the post-battle phase. Treat a successful
save exactly as if the warrior had received the "Full Recovery" result. He may
not explore, trade nor take part in any other post-battle activities".

vii. Page 51, under "Gromril Armour" add "In addition the warrior gains a 4+
save against Serious Injury during the post-battle phase. Treat a successful
save exactly as if the warrior had received the "Full Recovery" result. He may
not explore, trade nor take part in any other post-battle activities".

viii. MH Annual 2002, Page 16, under "Toughened Leathers", replace the entire
Special Rules text with the line:
" A warrior wearing toughened leathers gains a 6+ save against Serious Injury
during the post-battle phase. Treat a successful save exactly as if the warrior
had received the "Full Recovery" result. He may not explore, trade nor take
part in any other post-battle activities. Toughened Leathers are classified as
Armour and may be worn by Henchmen"

OPTION B. http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/mordheim/message/56539

i. Page 35, "Fighting with two weapons". Add the line "Due to the difficulty
in fighting with more than one weapon, any warrior attempting to do so suffers a
-1 penalty to hit with both weapons. A warrior using a pistol in hand-to-hand
combat is exempt from this penalty."

ii. Page 122, New Combat Skill "Maniac Warrior: The Warrior is adept at
fighting with a weapon in each hand. He may ignore the -1 to hit penalty that
such practice normally incurs."

iii. Replace the existing cost, movement penalty, rarity and armour saves with
the following:

- Light Armour: 6+ save , no -1M with shield, common, (10GC)
- Medium Armour: 5+ save, no -1M with shield, common, (20GC)
- Full Armour: 4+ save, -1M with shield, rare 8, (50GC)
- Ithilmar: 4+, no -1M with shield, rare 11 (90GC)
- Gromril: 4+, no -1M with shield, rare 11, Special Rule: "Death
Defying: A warrior that is wearing Gromril armour gains a 4+ save against
Serious Injury during the post-battle phase. Treat a successful save exactly as
if the warrior had received the "Full Recovery" result (150GC)

Medium, Full, Ithilmar & Gromril Armour are all types of Heavy Armour.


OPTION C. http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/mordheim/message/56538

i. Page 35, "Fighting with two weapons". Add the line "Due to the difficulty
in fighting with more than one weapon, any warrior attempting to do so suffers a
-1 penalty to hit with both weapons. A warrior using a pistol in hand-to-hand
combat is exempt from this penalty."

ii. Page 122, New Combat Skill "Maniac Warrior: The Warrior is adept at
fighting with a weapon in each hand. He may ignore the -1 to hit penalty that
such practice normally incurs.."

iii. Page 51, under Shield. Add the line. "In addition to this save, a warrior
armed with a shield and a hand-weapon has a basic save of 5+ (or may add +2 to
his armour save if other armour is worn). Mounted models may not gain this
benefit. Hand weapons are defined as hammers, staffs, maces, clubs, axes,
swords, morning stars and spears. Variants such as rapiers or Dwarf axes are
also included.

Page 51, under Buckler. Add the line "In addition to this, a warrior armed
with a buckler and a hand-weapon has a basic save of 6+ (or may add +1 to his
armour save if other armour is worn).

iv. Page 32 & p.167. Critical Hits Chart. Under result 5-6 "Master Strike!"
remove the line "The attack ignores all armour saves"

Page 160. Optional Missile Critical Hits Chart. Under result 5-6 "Master Shot"
remove the line "There is no armour save"

Page 161. Optional Bladed Weapon Critical Hits Chart. Under result 5-6
"Sliced!" remove the words "ignores armour saves"

Alright, doing some more stat analysis. It's not enough to say that as # Attacks increase, each additional Attack brings reduced returns in causing an Injury roll. This is true with causing only one Injury roll, but not true when attempting to cause multiple Injury rolls.

After causing Injury rolls, each additional Injury roll yields less return on the chance of OOA, but the 2nd and 3rd Injury roll at least do significantly increase the chances of OOA:

1 Injury roll = 33% OOA
2 Injury rolls = 56% OOA
3 Injury rolls = 70% OOA

So, when OOA is the ultimate goal, not just Injury rolls, multiple attacks are greatly desired. Of course, the same is true even more when fighting multiple-Wound models.

With these considerations, DW may be more effective than armor - but remember, armor's survivability bonus to defeat all incoming wounds begins to be static (around 20%) vs being unarmored when then the number of incoming attacks increase.

Wow, lots to keep a mathematical mind busy here - back to the calcs...

Da Bank wrote:

On the idea that a 1 always fails, I actually was able to talk to Tuomas about this and he said if 1s always failed then it would take away from purchasing all the armor. I don't believe ones should always fail on armor.

However, placing a floor of AS 2+ gives us the option of increasing AS w/o making some models immune to the attacks of others. I notice how carefully official rules are set so as not to get below AS 2+ (Gromril+shield+horse+barding) (EDIT: see admission of my laughable mistake at the bottom). If we keep any other AS bonuses, like weap+shield (and our considered helmet bonus) off-horse (as in Option A) to a floor of AS 2+, then this consideration doesn't matter. However, the moment armor becomes buffed enough to get to a 1+, a floor of 2+ should be considered, and it will not take away from purchasing all the armor. The objective of getting armor better than 2+ is purely padding against the ways to reduce armor saves.

Alright, so let's review the restrictions we're being handed now:

1. Can't mess with WH rules
2. Can't take away free dagger
3. Can't make a roll of 1 always fail on an Armor Save

Any other restrictions from on high?

No wonder this never got resolved before. Too many can'ts; too many constraints will usually foil creativity. I outright reject the 3rd Can't, and would love Tuomas to join us on this very discussion about it.

As regards "experimental rules will never be used," that's untrue. Experimental rules may never be updated in the "GW-official Mordheim book," (if that ever gets updated, which seems extremely improbable). but experimental rules have always, are being, and will always be used in many, many Mordheim campaigns. Again - I am not in this discussion to attempt to force an official rules change. I'm in this discussion so that we, the people here, can try to forge the best experimental rules we can to deal with DW (and, by extension, AS).

Also, I know we're retreading old ground, but it appears that, at least from reviewing the options, we're well onto new ground.

So the options all have -1 to both attacks when DW. ts061282 has already shown that to be detrimental to high Attack models.

Option B almost contradicts a statement by Steve Hambrook in TC22, that armor should remain expensive and rare - oops, another "can't." However, option B may neatly sidestep that issue with an AS buff at equivalent costs (and a lower-quality armor snuck in at reduced cost).

Option C is definitely the weakest, and subpar to the effectiveness of armor in WH - since WH is the "parent game," this option should be right out.

So it appears that the "community" was willing to accept DW at reduced effectiveness, since this appears in all three options. Would the "community" be willing then the accept a primary/off hand differentiation, and a penalty only to the off-hand?

Edit: Agh - let emotions get me on the AS 1 fails. So gromril(4+)+shield(+1)+horse(+1)+barding(+1) does get down to 1+. I can see how some might not buy barding if the 2+ was the floor. But then, they'd really just not buy the shield instead, and then DW again! Or they'd keep the 1+ against all the S4+ opponents. No - the argument against an "AS roll of 1 always fails" still doesn't hold.

wyldhunt wrote:

It seems that, even though free daggers aren't WH, removing them won't fly with the guys that are closest to the design principles of Mordheim.

Hate to admit it, but some part of me agrees with them. Cheesy as it may be, it does make Mordheim Mordheim. Plus, an extra source of +1 AS may help illustrate the improved shield/armor situation.




More thoughts on the "meaning" of a wound in Warhammer vs Mordheim:
Combat in Warhammer is pluralistic, a wound means one of the enemies attacks is gone (the dead guy). Combat in Mordheim is binary (generally), a wound means all the enemies attacks are gone for the turn and you will attack again before they do (at the least). Therefore, Mordheim's combat focuses on producing as many wounds as possible as quickly as possible. The changes we seek will make shield/armor about as likely to negate a wound as wielding two weapons, or double-handed weapons, is to cause a wound. This way, when you forgo a second hand weapon (the ability to cause wounds) for a shield (the ability to negate wounds) you are not at a disadvantage.

I would be happy with the off hand being penalized.

Damn those rules ideas as there is my old idea coming back to taunt me, Shields at +2AS.

If anyone is too lazy to think this out... check what I made.



This is JUST for hitting ONCE with two equal stats lines without armour etc.

(In the graph, I should have had the values on the Y Axis (aka 0/6, 1/6, 2/6 etc actually be percentages)

TheFool wrote:

check what I made.

You're Excel skills are growing exponentially Skywalker...

...but what are you trying to show with this exactly?